TABLE OF CONTENTS

Introduction

I The Gospel According to Mafthew

iI The English Text and Seriptural Context
III The Greek Text |
IV The Authenticity of Matthew 16:13-20

V Exposition and Conclusions

Footnotes
Bibliography

oOo VP ee pf

22
29

35
36&37

I wish to state as I begin, that I have| learned in my study
of Matthew 16:13-20, that what I now must do is nearly impossible.
My immediate purpose is to exegete this small passage, or at least
apart of it. But I have discovered that S passage, or any
passage, cannot be lifted out of context, held up, coddled, adored,
attacked historically, literally, existentially and still be
expected to be the vessel of God's Word, WNeifther can one be a true

exegete if he brings to his work preconceive@ notions and dogmas.
In this latter case my choice of passages has been unfortunate,

for if there is a “loaded” word in all of Bible it is the word
"kingdom." What word in the seriptures has
than ‘chureh?” Exegeting my passage implies |a knowledge of what
Jesus meant when he referred to himself as "
words and coneepts are very simply too far-
with fairly in a work of this size. A weal

ited more controversy

of material has been
written on each, and of course I have not able to read it all.
I must, however, deal with them and make decisions concerning
them, Here at least allow me to affirm my ility before not only
the magnifieent work of generations of Bibligal scholars, but
aiso before the text itself.
This paper is the fruit of eight weeks af continuous labor;
harder work than I have done or any single assignment in eight
years of “higher education.” I feel I have a much; about
how to approach the Bible, about the Church, and about myself. I

deeply appreciate the opportunity and necessity of doing it.

i

As stated in the Introduction, it is a very elementary but
profound truth that a Biblical text cannot understood out of
context. And while I feel some critics have allowed context to
become the only means to interpretation, to point of rendering
God's Word irrelevant to modern lives, it still must be the
beginning point of exegesis. This is particularly true with
reference to Mt. 16:13-20 in that the passage appears only in the
first gospel in its given form. At the risk of being guilty of over
simplifying something that is not at all simple I make the
following observations.

The Gospel of Matthew, as all writings

a proclaimatory-
response to a

confessional-apologetic nature, was written
need in a given situation. The need here was to so state the
“good news" of Jesus Christ that it would fall upon responsive
ears in the Jewish nation. The situation, of course, was the
early Jewish-Christian Church; more specifically the church at
Antioch. Peter, who I will discuss thro the paper, plays

a central role in the Matthean narrative; more so than in the
other accounts, And because Peter was the leader of the Church

at Antioch, becoming later almost a “Patron Saint” of that church,
it would seem safe to assume that Antioch was the situation out of

i.

which the gospel was written,

There are several characteristics of
immediately.distinguish it from the other s
of the gospel, as compared to Luke, is obv

first gospel that

ties, The "Jewishness:
- The narrative begins
to Dovid, Jacob,

rely in the

writer goes to all

with a genealogy, genetically relating Jesus
Issac and Avraham, and thusly positing him s
historical tradition of the people of God.
lengths to point out that Jesus was the fulfillment of 0ld Testa-
ment prophecy, and that everything he did been promised by
the prophets, While Paul is struggling with the problems the
Jewish law created for the Gentile Christ in Galatia, Corinth
and Rome, the writer of Matthew points out t Jesus is the
fulfillment and embodiment of the law.. Some scholars have even
pointed to the similarities between Moses giving the Law from
Mt, Sinai, and Jesus proclaiming the "new law” in the Sermon on
the Mt. In Luke the same incident oceurs on the plain. Innu-
merable illustrations could be used to trate the point which
I think is both clear and accepted--that Matthew was written by a
dew for the purpose of persuading the Jews t Jesus Christ was
the promised Messiah,

A second major characteristic of the

1, and one of direct
concern, is that it alone, among the few gospels contains the word
"ehurch” ( ). The Jewish nation had always been a religious
community; the collective nouns, “nation,
tion” are liberally used to describe God's ¢

2.

oi Nostement. The Messianic age in Jewish | hatology would re-
produce this community. That the Aramaic here rendered

Was an Old Testament word is a definite possibility that I will exami
examine later, Let it suffice now to assert that Matthew being the
only witness to mention the Church is not ingongruous with his
funetion as a Jewish Christian, himself the son of the religious
community of Israel.

The question of sources and authorship is a more difficult
one; it too, however inadequately, must be mqntioned That the
author of Matthew had a copy of Mark before 7" seems beyond
doubt, 606 of the 661 verses in Wark appear dss Matthew almost
verbatum, There is also a block of material common to Matthew and
Luke but not included in Mark, This material, mostly the sayings
of Jesus, has been called the “Logia" or "Q,! That this material
Was & single document, although long assumed, does not necessarily
follow, In any case the writers of Mt, and luke did have a common
source of material unknown to Mark. There are, of course, portions
of Matthew that are unique; e.g. Mt. 16:17-19, appearing in none
of the other witnesses, This leads to the sortion that the
writer had another source, known only to hia, This source has
been called "HM." |

That Matthew, (Levi) the tax collector wrote the gospel is
doubtful. An eye witness to the life of — wouid hardly have
to rely on the word-for-word account of another writer. But that

3e

“i. thow had nething to do with the writing ip equally an unwarranted
assumption, The accourit does bear his name, it does reflect the
Gomestie difficulties of Christianity in a J
which he would have been acutely aware; and
passages totally different from any other acgount., Bither these
are the work of an eye witness or else they t be sheer fabrica-
tion, it is my humble opinion that the fo is the case; that
the gospel is indeed the content of that whi¢h was preached by
Matthew; that it perhaps contains passages t he wrote down
himself, but that the actual penning of the and sentences
Was done by another Jewish Christian. Dat the gospel circa
80 A.D., this would seem to be a fair decision. References to
the destruction of the temple and the chureh-+conseciousness make
an earlier date unlikely, and provide further evidence that it
was written after Matthew's death,

This then is what is needed before one
& certain passage within the gospel narrative. In no sense of
the word is it meant to be a definitive ste t about Matthew,
Bach observation was made because of the reldtionship it has to
the specific passage in question: Matthew 16113-20.

begin to examine

II THE ENGLISH TEXT AND SCRIPTURAL CONTEXT

Having seen some of the major characteristics of the Gospel
in which the passage occurs; it is now necestary to examine the
passage in light of the entirety of Biblical literature. Taking
ions I hope to
ntral thoughts, re-
ined entity; in
a or a reformla-
stament and
11 attribute this
author I mean the

the risk of revealing later exegetical concl

point out in what way the passage, and its
lates to the rest of the Bible es a self-con
what ways it is an expression of a unique
tion of a germinal idea existant in the Old
Israelite tradition. From this point on I w
passage to Matthew. When I designate him as
author of this passage, and not the entire Géspel.
in very general terms, this passage is @ crucial and central
event for Matthew. Having come into the district of Caesarea
Philppi Jesus asks his disciples a rather as
The “feel” of the passage in context is one of crisis, end and
beginning, change. Aiter reading and reread I find myself
thinking that something is radically different once 16:13-20

has transpired, The relationship between Jegus and disciples has
been altered; the old has come to an end, out of the old

wust now grow something new,

De

The incident of Jesus’ inquiring as to popular concep-
tion of his identity appears in all three i ties. Matthew
differs, however, in that Jesus refers to h lf as “the Son
of Man.” Mark and Luke record his self reference only as “I.”
In Luke the oceasion is different from Matthew; Luke describes
Jesus praying alone, his disciples with him,

That the disciples‘ response to the quedtion is an accurate
reflection of his popular standing is proven by other witnesses.
Herod, hearing about Jesus, suspected that it) was John the Baptist
raised from the dead (Mt, 14:2; Mk. 6:14-15). In Luke 9:7-0
t. Herod consoles
John the Baptist.

the people say it is John, Elijah or a pro
himself with the assurance that he has be
The priests and levites, sent by the Jews
with the Christ, Elijah, and the prophet, (
But then Jesus, brushing aside all popu
the question directly upon the disciples. ~“
that I am?" (Mt, 1645) ‘his, in my opinion,
of crisis. This question having been voiced, not by the disciples
in speculation but by Jesus, comes through me like a demand.
Por the disciples this was the proverbial “paint of no return.”

accounts, turns
t who do you say
is the precise point

ut Mt.) replies:
e At @ later point

Peter as the group's spokesman, (
"You are theChrist, the Son of the living
I will discuss the function of these two titles. It should be noted
here, however, that while neither is an accepted, widely used
new. In Matthew's
father of Joseph

mode of addressing Jesus, they are not total
genealogy we find the words "..,.and Jacob

6.

is called Christ.”
Martha's confession,

the Son of God, he

ving just encountered
of God....." (dn. 1:49)
the different people

ly stable cultural

vive Kusband of Mary, of whom Jesus was born,
(Mt. 1:16) Jesus' raising of Lazarus prompt
"Yes Lord: I believe that you are the Christ
who is coming into the world,” (Jn, 11:27)
Jesus, Nathanael says, “Rabbi, you are the
That these titles had different meanings for
who employed them, or that they carried a fa
meaning is a question that will be discussed

Peter's magnificent affirmation had ba
when Jesus conferred upon him the popular

ly left his lips

titude and certain

lem of epistemology.

ef the Greek, although
ler to the "Blessedness!
and the play upon
ieated one, The names

epecific powers, Again we encounter the pro
“Blessed"is perhaps an inadequate translat
I feel that whatever is here conferred is s
of Matt. 5:3-11. The question of Peter's
the Aramaic and Greek words is indeed @ comp
Peter and Cephas are used interchangeably t
Testament. “Flesh and blood” was @ popular
liberally by Paul (I Cor, 15:20; Gal, 1:15-1
“keys” have definitive paraliels in Isaiah
Bliakim, son of Hilkiah: “And I will place
key of the house of David; he shall open and
he shall shut and none shall open,” and in

and I have the keys of Death and Hades,”
Peter's powers of “binding and licosing’ are given to ail the
disciples in Mt. 16:18, And in dm. 20:23 disciples are given

the powers of “forgiving and retaining sins,”| But to argue that
Jesus meant all the diseiples in this instande is unwarranted. He

is obviously talking to Peter.
Te

none shail shut; and
welation 1:18: “.sseeccces

The Messianic secret expression, “Then
Giseiples to tell no one that he was the Chr
and occassionally appears in Mt. After cle
tells him, “See that you say nothing to any
Mk, 3:12 Jesus orders the unclean spirits "
Other clear statements of this motif are f
72363 8:30; 9:9.

The positing of Peter as foundation of

strictly charged the
st." is common to Mark
ing a leper, Jesus
soos” (Mt, 824) In
)t to make him known,”
in Mc, 1:44; 5:43;

ehurch has not been
specific parallel
texts. As stated before Matthew is the only gospel to use the

word Church; and he uses it but three times: here and in 18:17.
These facts understood, I still do not feel t Matthew here records
Jesus expressing an alien concept. I will atitempt, in my exposi-
tion to prove that “church” was indeed Bibl » and a quite

natural and willful outgrowth of Jesus' miniatry.

mentioned in this section because there are

8.

III THE GRESK TEXT
Translation, Analysis and Word Study

This section will attempt to deal with text, and specific

key words, as it is. Because there are so different inter-
pretations of the text and because so many lars have con-
sidered it to be a revision or later addition to the original
I have decided to consider these problems in separate sections,
Matthew _16:13-20
» And when Jesus had come into the re of Caesarea of
Philippi he asked his disciples say "Who are men
saying the Son of Man is?"
yo 2nd Aorist, Active, Participle, Singular Masculine,
Nominative
to come; transiated “had come” to indicate action
occurring prior to the main verb, ¢.f,. 2
&. imperfect, Active, 3rd Pe » Singular, Indicative
to ask; translated simpie t
3. Present, Active 3rd Person, Plural, Indicative

to say; translated “are saying! to indicate present
buy on-going action,

4, Infinitive of > gf

Indirect discourse in the text of direct dis-

course, ie. Jesus’ question,
Subject in the accusative;

9.

The text beginning with a geographical
the general feeling of “uniqueness.” All

eritical. Without warning Jesus asks the stion about the Son
of Man; obviously he was referring to himself,

With great frustration I discovered that "Son of Man,” like
other key words and phrases in the text, has been a fertile field
for exegetical and critical study. Here If
sheer impossibility of reading everything that has been written
about the subject and the necessity of ma Gecisions in lieu
of limitdd knowledge. I have tried to echoos¢ only that material

t encountered the

I consider best, using as much of it as possible in my interpretation.
It has been observed that the phrase " Son of Man” occurs
eighty one times in the gospels as a self-des tion of Jesus.
Never is Jesus' usage of the phrase questioned by disciples or
Opponents. The view of some scholars that ” Son of Man” was
a messianic title in popular use seems to be unfounded, If their
assumptions were true surely he would have questioned about it.
The whole tone of secrecy and hesitancy concerning Jesus Messiahship
makes it highly improbable that he would use a popular messianic
title as a self-identification,
In the Old Testament “Son of Man” is u synonymously with
man. “What is man, that thou art mindful of him? And the son of
man, that thou visitest him?” Ps. 8:4 To a 88 one as “son of man”

seems only to be an affirmation of one's ty. "Son of man”

10,

is God's mode of addressing Rzekial (Ez. 2:l+etc.). Here the
phrase "...,suggests at once the littleness df the prophet as a
man; and the greatness to which God calls hig in his service;
through him, man though he is, God speaks to
on his high purposes,"1 In Dgniel the term is used apocalyptically.
Campbell notes that in the gospels the
the article, while in every other Biblical
exception of Acts 7:56, the article is miss
gospels, then, the phrase should read “a2 son of man” or ‘Ison
of man" imperatively. That Jesus used the definite article
leads me to think that he meant much more t simply man. He
referred to “the” Son of Man; apparently there was no other in
of Man" was

" was synonymous
than man in suing

nm, and carries

se is preceded by
urrence, with the
- Outside of the

his mind, And so it is my conclusion; that
not @ popular messianic title; that "son of
with man for the Jews; but that Jesus meant
the article. Any further conclusions would
of Jesus’ “mesdiah consciousness"--at subject that cannot be dealt

ve to ansve the question

with fairly here,

Verse 14

Trans. And they said, “Some are saying John tist, others are
saying Blijah, and other are saying Po or one of the

prophets,”

de 2nd Aorist, Active, Indicative, 3rd Person, Plural
to say

li.

It would seem that the literal read
should be, “On the one hand they.....
others." But, » used
contrast may be translated simply "

- understood from vs. thirteen
eate present and ongoing action,

3.

occees Others, "2

translated to

As stated before the disciples response seems to be a fairly

accurate report on the popular conception vale ay

of EBiijah is significant in that it was bel

bodily into heaven. Jeremiah was simply a

The mention
da that he ascended

at prophet. It

must be noted that these are indeed complementary comparisons,

Perhaps the disciples exaggerated in their response; perhaps the

people were saying that he was a prophet and
mind, wre comparing him to Elijah et. al.
Just my speculation,

Nerse 15

Trans. He said to them, “But who do you say I

y, in their own

This, of course, is

am?”

Ae Present, Active, Idicative, 3rd Berson, Singular
Historic present, translated past ("said” rather
than “says")

to say

e. Present, Active, Indicative, 2nd Person, Plural

te say

3. Accusative of the personal pronoun a

4, Infinitive of I am

Same use as in vs. 13
This verse is a good example of Jesus'
as a self-designation. In verse thirteen he
here 16 is simply "I"

i2,

of “the Son of Man”
sed the phrase:

Verse 16

trans. Simon Peter answered and said, "You are the Christ, the Son
of the Living God.”

As Aorist, Indicative, 3rd Person, Singular of the
Geponent verb.
» to answer, rep
2. 2nd Aorist, Indicative, ne 3rd Berson, Singular
to say
3. 2nd eats SSnGUAMe Present Tense
4. Present Participlie, Genitive, Singular, Masculine
to live
The Gk. » Simply means the " inted one.” It was
an aecepted practice in early Israelite tradition to annoint kings
and high priests with o11. The annointing by a prophet
Signified God's sanction, and at times more. Peter, speaking out
of this tradition, surely used in is manner, As the

early Christians used the term in reference Jesus it took on)

lost as “Christ”
became a proper name. There is generally very little use of the
term in the gospels. Mark reports that Jesug claimed the title at
his tril (Mk. 14:61f), but Mt. and Luke report him as refusing

to answer the High Priest's question. In Jesus is acknowledged
as from the beginning. He claims title once (Jn. 4:25f)
and never attempts to conceal it in the manner described by

Mk, and Mt.

renewed meaning. But the meaning was quick

13.

This brings me again to the question of
consciousness,” and I must confess that this
confused me. On the one hand there is ample

Jesus' “messianic
study has only further
evidence that Jesus

knew his identity and mission from the beginning; but on the other

hand it seems at times as if he is not sure,
cost speech, seems to indicate that Jesus bed
the crucifixion.

“Let all the house of Israel therefor
that God has madehim both Lord and
whom you crucified.” Acts 2:36 e.e.
of Nazareth, but God has made him
This argument casts real doubt on the authen
report, a question I will diseuss in a later
great deal more ought to be said I think Pe

explained in the verses that follow. His ref

the implications of his statement in the next

lead me to the conclusion that he did make
understanding of “the Christ" was determined
tradition of Israel.

Peter, in his Pente-
ame the Christ after

know assuredly
ist, this Jesus
erucified Jesus
Christ.

leity of Matthew's
Although a

*s confession is

section,

1 to aecept
passage 16:21-23
statement; but his
the annointing

To the question of Jesus self-acknowledgement I quote Campbell

again:
"Unfortunately, this means tha

& re is no
sufficient evidence to show whether o nos Jesus in

fact believed himself to be the Mess
Verse i7

14,

.fzhe. Jesus answered and said to him, “You|are fortunate
(Blessed are you), Simon -Jonah, for flesh and blood
has not revealed (disclosed) this to you but my Father
who (is) in heaven,"

i. c.f. vs. 16.

2. the context this word had
Christians is a subject in and of itseif.
too many overtones of popular piety; "f
the note of congratulation md joy that was
Professor Marcus Barth has suggested that ”
appropriate translation of in Mt, 5:3-11. It seems
to me, however, that though happy may be
of the Beatitudes, here Jesus meant some
affirmation sprang from a source other than
He had been the object of Divine R@velation; therefore he was more
than happy; perhaps even more than frtunate,

3. Bar~-Jonah; son of Jonah

4, Aorist, Active, Indicative
to reveal, disc
ular instead of plural because flesh blood, ”

" ave not two se te entities. Together
they constitute a Rabinnical idiom that here means, “this has
not come to you through the normal c ls of reason and logic.”
That Peter did not come to this confess by his own reflective
thinking is revealed in his apparent rstanding of his
utterance. (Mt. 16:21-23)

Verse 15 _

3rd Person, Singular
se. The verb is sing-

- And I say to you that you are Peter, and upon this rock I
will build my church, and the gates of Hades will not be
victorious over it.”

a proper name - Peter

2. rock

3. Puture, Active, Indicative, First,Person, Singles
to build, construct (may be used literally

or figuratively as in this verse).
4, From Hades, unde ld, of the dead

15.

5. Puture, Active, Indicative, 3rd Person, Plural
q be dominant, revail; with the genitive
it can be translated “w
be victorious”

a victory over,

by some scholars and denied by others. H.D.A. Major thinks that
the passage explains how Simon got the name Peter, T.V. Manson,
in the same book gives evidence to the a nt by pointing out
that Jesus also gave the nickname "sons of
rebuke to the tempers of two of his diseiples.% On the other hand
C.G, Montefiore assumes that Simon already
( ).9 I would have to side with the former argument but
qualify it by my uncertaintity that the "n " took place on
this specific oecassion,

The name itself is quite interesting.
Agamaie for "rock" or “stone” was probably
used. it is in no sense a common name--but
criptive title. The Greek transeribers used the Aramaic word in
some instances, (Cephas) but in others translated it to the Gk,

word Kepha ;
word which Jesus

re used as a des-

» Which also means “rock.” The play and
is then a witty linguistic maneuver hidden the English text.
Peter has become, like @ common 3 but Culiman points

out that to really undetstand what Jesus said the name should read
"Simon Rock,"© The question of whether Simon was the Rock or his
confession will be discussed in the final section, But even at
this point it is rather hard to imagine that ot meant anything
other than that which he so adequately stated}; that Simonis the

16.

Rock, “Rock” itself is a word frequently uséd in the 014 Testament
to indicate God's constancy, changelessness protection, ¢.f. I
Isaiah 32:2; Deut. 32:4. When the word oce in the New Testament
it must be understood in light of this earli¢r significance.

In discussing the appearance of the “church”
I will comment this point only on the mean the word had for those who
used and heard it, Purther comment will be gigen in the interpre-
tatiwe section, Again the precise content word includedis
highly disputed. Cullman sums up one side of the argument:
“Above all, the Jewish Messianie expectation includes the concep-
tion of a Messianic community and is inconceivable without it,"7
Cullman argues against those who think Jesus is here initiating a
new concept; or that the words were added at : later date by the

church by saying that ( ) bel in the Jewish sphere,
Gahal and Kenushta; “people of God'--were ¢ ts quite common to the
Jews of the time. Cullman warns that, "It not right to start

from a later concept of the and then conclude that it

cannot possibly be ascribed to Jesus."8 If he had any “Messianic
conseiousness,” and he surely did, it is ine us to assume

that consciousness existed apart from a ” of God” context.

This of course is a question of Christology; some, @.g. Bultmann,

have denied Jesus' Messianic consciousness and lent credence to the
speculation that he intended no comminity, no people, no church,
Although the word occurs Only two more times in the
Gospels (Mt. 18) Jesus did refer to the community on other
occasions, e.g. Mt. 26:31-"flock;" Lk. 12:32-"little flock,"
17.

Flew points out that the Aram, Kenushta, the
than likely used, primarily meant the local Jewish Community; and
that it could have meant the "Messianic
Cullman makes the definitive statement however, when in reference
to Mt. 16, Mt. 11:4 and 10:7 he says, “For it becomes dear

that for Jesus not omjy his own coming but a the existence and
the work of the group of disciples is already the fulfillment and
in-breaking of the time of redemption, "2°

Verse 19

Trans. “I will give to you the keys of the K of heaven, and
whatever you bind upon the earth will have been bound in

heaven, and whatever you loose upon earth will have been

loosed in heaven”

is Puture, Active, INdicative, t Person, Singular
to ve
2. anything used for locking; i.e. a key
3. whatever; indicates future ebndition with the
subjunctive

4, Present, Active, Subjunctive, 2nd Person, Singular
to bind or tie, 11 lly or figuratively

Ss. will have been bound
Future, active, Indicative, 3rd Person
Singular

Per€ect, Passive, Participle, Nominative Singular,

Neuter

“The Greek perfect tense denotes the abe t state resultant
upon a past action” - J. Gresham Mac |
e °°. Ww P 5 Pp. .

18.

1

Peter's binding and loosing on earth wil
affect a binding and loosing in heaven, The
a state of boundness as the result of Peter’
I would like to translate this differently, a
and tenses makes this the only possilility.

6.

to loose

Te
Neuter, ef. §

The exact relationship between “kingdom”
been difficult for me to understand, It woul
the two are totally unrelated but the more
a unity the less this initial observation
of heaven” was an idiom frequently used to a
of the Lord. The question of the time and
kingdom of heaven involves the whole of Jew
thinking:- a subject infinitely too complex

Even were this a possibility we have no ass
here speaking as a Jewish eschatologist.
The prophet David had vividly symbolized

1 simultaneously

will exist in heaven
binding. As much as
eareful study of words

Present, active, Subjunctive, 2nd Person, Singular

Perfect Passive Participle, Nominative, Singular

and “church” has
seem, at first, that

id saying the name
location of the
eschatalogical
discuss here.
@ that Jesus was

the apocalyptic kingdom;

the Zealots saw the kingdom as the reestablishment of Israel to

its onee mighty stature under the Davidiec and

Solomonic monarchies.

That Jesus meant any of this is highly dubi
wise I am forced to observe that church and k
if they are not synonmous,
W.C. Allen states that the is
Peter's keys are to that which will come with
19.

mast be related

not the kingdom,
the Son of Man when

he returns upon the clouds of heaven, The c
of those who were to wait for the kingdom,
and Peter--with the other disciples wou hol
Gership in it when it came. The powers of “
are legal authority to forbid and permit and
not only by Peter--but by all the disciples,

Plew thinks the power of the keys is pa
and does not necessarily mean authority in
“The key is the spiritual insight which will

has passed himseir,°22

I hesitate to draw final econelusions he
Peter was definetly given cer
kingdom. Whether the kingdom meant the ec
sure; but that they are related I am certain,

ean be said,

then are earthly powers, granted and sanct
are eternal, or that they apply to his succe

assumptions,
Merse 20

positions of lea~-
inding and loosing"
to be wielded

1

t of discipleship
lesiastical affairs.

but I feel a minimum
powers in the

I cannot say for
Peter's powers

a by God. That they

rg--are unwarranted

Trans. Then he warned the disciples that they) should not tell

anyone that he was the Christ.

i.

Aorist, Active, I@dicative, Person, Singular
to rebuke, reprove; filowed by
“warned,” "Strietly charged” seems to free. Was

it a charge or a warning?
with the subjunctive indicates exhortation

20,

unee it when it came, a

3. 2nd howto, Satins Subjunctive, 3rd Person, Sing.
Employment of the "Historic Present” allows this to be
translated “was” instead of "is." (lit
i think this statement was made for two reasons. Pirstly the
disciples didn't understand what was meant the Christ. This
is illustrated by the passage that follows (Mt. 16:21-23), It
would be better for them to say nothing than to annomnce a Christ
they did not begin to understand. Secondly, the terseness of the
Statement, its abrupt interruption, leade me to think that there
were immediate reasons why they should tell no one. The word
translated “strictly charged" by the R.S.V., |in my mind, should
be “warned” as I have indicated. In this se it is possible
that physical danger was imminent if the di les should go about
proclaiming Jesus as the Christ at that time,
Ae I eonelude this section I wish again express my feelings
of frustration, I have chosen what I felt the most crucial
words; and in each case these words have involved volume after
volume and centuries of debate. in that it ip possible I have
attempted to sift and measure that which I read--and come to the
conclusion that I felt I was able to make.

21.

For many seholars the authenticity of
questionable. A rough categorisation of the
as follows,

said it; but that it was added to the text at

t. 1613-20 1s highly
rguments would be

A, Those who think that neither Jesus nor Matthew

@ later date.

B. Those who think Jesus never said it exactly--but that Matthew,

interpreting Jesus thoughts, composed it. Cc.
Jesus said it but that the writer has located
context from the actual occurrence. D. Those
is true literally between ¢. and D.

Of the critics I read almost two to one |
i shali try to
some Of the best of their arguments,

Almost every critic notes that Matthew a

authenticity of the passage.

occurrence in this manner. It is not une

to differ in their accounts; but the question

Those who think that
it in a different
who think the text

against the
ummarize briefly

one records the
for the Evangelists
can be legitimately

asked:-how something of this importance was i reported by Mark

and Luke.

“It is difficult to understand how Mar!
omit this part of the story if they
they could have failed to kmow it if
reply in this way.”

22.

and Luke could
w it, or how
sus really did

Other critics point out that Matthew
the Markan text for the purpose of glorify
to the cycle of "Petrine stories” characeris

obviously added to
Peter. They point

ie of Matthew; and

the general concensus is that these stand on a lower historical
level than Mark and “@." Of all the commen res I read, T.W. Manson
has dealt with the question most fairly. He states all the argu -

t of them; and then

ed the argu-

ments against the passage, gives answer to
decides against the passage. In that he has
ments so thoroughly I will use his outline
1. Absence of Gospel Paraileis. Ag Manson points out this alone
signifies nothing. The source of real suspicion lies in the fact
but both fail to

add my own comments .24

that there are similar passages in Mk. and L
mention Peter's powers and the Church. This argument is further
strengthened by the fact that Luke, author of Luke-Acts, kmew

the word » and in fact used it in but not in Luke.
2. Kinggom vs. Church Jesus and his followers expected the coming
of the kingdom so he couldn't have founded a ¢hurch. This is valid
assuming that kingdom and church are different--and even hostile
concepts. But in my mind; the establishment of the church and the
giving of the keys, practically simultaneously, indicates that the
two are indeed closely related. Both conceptgé are possible in the
context of Israel:-a people of God, now a religious community; but
also a commmity awaiting an act of God, in eoming Messiah, that
would usher in the kingdom,

23.

3. Historical Results If the verses were actual utterances of

@ prominent rob in the early chureh,
4, Peter and Rock Peter's unstable pe ty could hardly be
blatantly, that
Jesus made the state-
is dubious, this

likened to a rock. This argument assumes qu
we know Peter better than Jesus did. Even
ment on the character of Peter, which I
question is a bit too arrogantly presumptuous
5. The primacy of Peter over the twelve c iets with the other
sayings of Jesus. Mt, 19:28 mentions the disciples occupying

twelve thrones in the Kingdom; there is no mention of one being

more prestigious than another. In Mk. 10:35-8%5 the Sons of

Zebedee ask Jesus for a place of prominence the Kingdom. His
blunt refusal says nothing about Peter alre occupying the

position of prominence, but is a rebuttal to audacious asking.
This argument also overlocks Mt. 18:18; and more important fact
that Peter commonly spoke for--and was spoken| to, as a representative
of the twelve.
6. The silence of the early Church Fathers, Manson points out
that some critics have felt this notorious silence to be proof

that the passage was a later addition, But, he argues, the
problems existent in the early church had nothing to do with the
passage: “The primacy of Peter would not be a/useful weapon against

Gnosticism, for example ,"15 mi

Manson does not regard the passage as a ine utterance of
Jesus. He does, however, feel that it was aie Palestine origin.
He documents his argument by referring to dispute between Paul

and the “Petrine Party” described in I Corinthians." ¥In view of

the facts we may conjecture that the kind of claim for Peter which

we have in Mt. 16:18 was being pressed in fifties of the first
century, and that Paul is resisting it when he writes I Corinthians,"16
Manson speculates that the elevation of Pe by the Palestine church
1." This I think

's origin from

was meant to act as “some kind of check on
is the most plausible explanation of the pas
those who deny its authenticity.

W.C, Allen urges against authenticity,
Mt. where the other eleven disciples are cas
light. “It is, therefore, possible that 16:

ting instances in
in an unfavorable
“19 are in their

vangelist compiling
"17

present order and connection the work of the
detached sayings in honour of the great apos

©.@. Montefiore, likewise doubts the aut
passage on the grounds that the following di
inexplicable if Peter's supremacy had been
An interesting argument against is that of
Cullman. Zahu thinks the passage has been
Greek, and that it originally was stated; “I
you, Peter; on this rock I will build my ¢

clearly statea,18
1. Zahn, quoted by
translated into
to you, yes to
h." This is,
suming that we can
ble business.

of course, a very appealing conclusion; but
deduce what Jesus really said is indeed ques

25.

Cullman and Flew argue for authenticity with some qualifications,
The former discards the argument basing its agement on this sole
mention of chureh and in so doing directs a t at Bultmann et,
al, by saying “How many pearls we woudé have to discard as
from Jesus' Sermon the Mount--to name only one example--if
We were to let ourselves be girded by this principie.?9" Cculiman
concludes that the passage is of very early origin; that with the
exception of the naming of Peter, the event did happen; but that it
happened later in Jesus' ministry--perhaps at the Last Supper.
His time argument is particularly convincing he points out
that the story could hardly have originated after Peter no longer
stood at the head of the Jerusalem Church.

Flew underscores quite adequately the ot early origin
of the passage by citing that the beatitude, use of Simon's
Pather's name, the rabbinical idiom “binding loosing,” the

implied eschatology in the struggle against
all are characteristic of the first half of
I have reported both sides of this discu
I think 1t irresponsible for a student to mak
in the matter of mthenticity) until he has contemplated the rela-
tive merits of decisions made by scholars nently more qualified
than he. Having done this I am even more hesitant to voice an
opinion. But in that a decision in this matter is the sole deter-
mining factor in a discussion of interpretation I will climb slowly
out on the proverbial limb,

"gates of Hades"
first century .20
sion simply because

@ judgment (especially

26,

in my mind none of the eritics argued convincingly against
the authenticity of the passage. I felt that) some, especially the
older works, revealed an overt distaste for passage and its
traditional Roman Catholic interpretation, re all traditional
interpretations were thrown to the wind; and attempt made to
determine what the statement meant in the historical context in
which it supposedly oceurred the arguments inst authenticity
grew less and less convincing.

I believe the gospel according to Mat renders a fairly
accurate account of an event that did happen the midst of
Jesus' ministry, I think there is no ecultie or literary argument that
destroys the authenticity; but find most to
picking and chhosing materials that lend we t to the argument
against. In short, after studying the pas
studied it, I have no reason to doubt its au

It is "At what point does the exegete (speci
who must preach 52 sermons a year) lay aside

is the approach that rises above slavish
stops short of a “Bultmannism castration” of

27.

I eannot question the historical accuracy of this passage without

historicaily questioning the whole Bible; an

avor which I

presently feel is not even relevant. The Bible is not a book of

history; but if events like the one here 4
our Faith and Church rests on shaky foundat

not have an answer--only a hope that an

sed, never happened

will come.

V_BXPOSTTION AND CONCLUSIONS

interpretations of Mt. 16:13-20 have t itionally fallen into
one of two categories. Both interpretations are succintly stated
by authors contributing to the same book; I quote them, therefore,
as representatives:

|
"This blessing would seem to explain how Simon got the
name of Peter or the Rock Man. It is ause Jesus declares
to Simon that he will found His Church the rock of
Simon's confession of Him as the Christ, This must be the
meaning of this much disputed passage.”

"The obvious intention of the verse is oie we should under-
nn

stand Peter Iimself to be the rock,” r interpretations
"eoeehave to be forced upon the text.

As stated previously most scholars line nd somewhere behind the
first statement. I found it extremely ironical that most adherents
of the “rock-confession” view even those who poens eonsiderable
time proving the unreliability of the passage, It is as if they
were unsatisfied to have mortally wounded the passg@ge--and con-
tinued on stabbing until there is no chanee of life remaining.

The epitome of this endeavor I found in the International Critical
Commentary to which I have referred. In a

passage Allen portrays Peter as a very lucky person, whose res-
ponsibilities are likened to a businesswman
country club. Perhaps I am guilty of unders
of Biblical exegesis--but I am left with one

29.

Bither Jesus never said these words to Peter, and some one later
inserted them into the text; in which case should do well to
ignore them as mich as possible; or else Jesus did say them and
in saying them meant exactly what he said; which case the passage
is one of the most important in the Bible--deserving of our con-
tinued study and emphasis. In concluding paper I will proceed
from the latter alternative. |

The importance of this passage is illustrated in the imme-
Giacy with which Jesus turns the question the disciples.
After having asked what other people think about him, he forces
the disciples, those who have been with him @ay and night, to come
to some kind of conclusion themselves about he was. Peter
speaks immediately, without explanation, us words that apparently
had meaning to all who were there. Because
the Question he is congratulated by Jesus--
he has just affirmed was not the result of
revelation from God, Thusly, the attention is driven away fram
Peter as the source of this wonderful confession; to God, who
alone can reveal to a man the true meaning of the Christ. In light
of this, and that which follows (Mt. 16:21-23) the argument of
those who argue that (1,) the passage is a Matthean Petrine story;
(2.) the rock is Peter's faith, makes no - It isn't Peter's
faith--but an insight revealed to him by God, Immediately there
after Peter shows just how shallowhis personal understanding of the
Messiah is, Having confessed that Jesus was the Christ, Peter

3°,

f his response to
t told also that what
“headed logic but a

wes demonstrated that he had no idea what t meant; (or at least
what it meant to Jesus0, as he rebuked Jesus for telling of his
coming suffering and death, The problems in accusing Matthew of
glorifying Peter are glaring in that Matthew reports that Jesus
harshly rebuked Peter; (Get behind me, Satan} You are a hindrance
to me; for you are not on the side of God, bat of men"-Nt, 16:23)
after having bestowed on him the beatitude the powers.

Most scholars interept the words "church" and "kingdom" do
distinet and perhaps even hostile concepts,
passage I am not so certain the distinetion
already stated why I think ( ) } a natural result of
Jesus’ ministry. God's first covenant was with a “people.” The
new covenant would likewise be made with a pie," a “new Israel,”
&@ religious community, the ( ) or |the church. This
leads directly into the difficult New Test. t coneept of time. As
Christians we believe that the event of Je Christ was a superin-
position of the Eternal upon the Temporai,
Testament there runs a very real tension be present and future; ,

certainty that the Kingdom is coming. But I
mistake to interpret this entirely eschata

Was present, the disciples were already a withess 66 it--if not

31.

* sept of 1t3 and in the same line the ( ) was present
too, Everything that comes afterward; i.e.

in any sense of the word, deny the simul
these two entities at the time Jesus poke

The church was indeed built on Peter; but Peter the disciple
who was brought by God to make the amazing
was built on ali the disciples who later would imake this attiven-
tion; if they were not already making it. New Testament words,
at least to me, carry no note of exclusivene js, Peter is the Rock
upon which the church will be built~--but not essarily to the
exclusion of the other disciples,

iis powers also are not exclusive. In
the powers of binding and loosing. In Mt.
are given to all the disciples, Surely it id not impossible that

3 i.e. to Peter first

) is is precisely the

Jesus grented these powers in exactly this
and then to the others. I am reminded that
way the Resurrection appearances are reco » The powers are
"binding and loosing," rabbinical terms for forbidding and permitting.
it appears that these are very practical, legal powers and that

their exercise in the present Kingdom will | shape in the (

This, Of course, did happen. Peter and the disciples were the
leaders of the early church, and we can fairly assume that when

32.

situations arose calling for “binding and 1
ones to do it,
lead and decide--simply because they had
before his death,

ing” they were the

They would have been the most logical ones to

close to Jesus

That the powers here grantdd to Peter, and later to the others,

are eternal powers to be passed in apostolic
simply not a part of the Matthean narrative.
they are powers given to disciples of Jesus
line of “successors to Peter." Protestants
from this passage because of the Roman inte :
assumed to be there; but in fact, is not.

succession is very

Vary obviously

ith no hint of a
ditionally back awayl
tation that is

We are today, a part of the Chureh of Jesus Christ, a Church

which claims to be Apostolic, That the c
and the apostles is not a matter of debate.
Lord both before and after his death and re
Claimed the good news, alone, to a pagan and
founded and nurtured congregations of confe
before there had been none? After this st
in affirming that the early aposties are the
Which the church has been built. When it is
away from its apostolic origins the church
than that which grew out of the ministry of
I apologize for the excessive length of

know that this experience has been and will 4
helpful to me. My treatment of some subjec

h was built on Peter

but they knew our
tion? Who pro-
hostile world? Who
ing Christians, Where
I have no hesitancy
very foundation upon
not; when it backs

ying something other

sus Christ.

this paper and yet I
ontinue to be immensely
has been cursary and

perhaps irresponsible, in lieu of the verttable sea of ink spilled

I do not feel that I now
33.

over the passage.

all there is to

<a about the passage, but I do feel that I| have come to much
more intimate grips with it than I ever have| before. My only

regret is that a normal life-time is not enough to do this sam
thing from Genesis to Revelation.

34.

FOOTNOTES

lcampbell, A Ological Word Book of ¢ ible; ed. Alan Richardson,
(Macmilian Co,, New Yor Be °
2ek-Eng 1 a

@ apndt & Gingrich,

‘Major, Manson, & Wright, The Mission and Mess f£ s. (E.P. Dutton
and Col, New York, i9 » *
“mene stieve, The Synoptic Gospels. Vol, 11. (Macmilland Co,, London
927).
culiman, Osear, Peter, (SCM Press LID, London, 1953).
TIpid, p. 189. |

Sipig., p. 191.

Miew, Jesus His Church. (Abingdon, New York, Cincinnati, Chieago
ieee

1laiien, International Critical Commen "st, Matthew” (Charles
Seribaeete Sons, New York 1507} pp. 176-77.

125 ow, op. cite., p. 132.
13campbell, op, eite., 9. 44,
i jor, Manson & Wright, op. cite., pp 493-97,
15rpid., p. 494. |
10rpig., p. 496
1Tailen, op, cite., p. 180,
Montefiore, op. cite., p. 236,
193.1 1man, op. cite., pp. 170-71
“°piew, op, cite., p. 124f,

2lus jor, op. cite., p. 109,
22uManson, Op. cite., p. 496.

35.

BIBLIOGRAPHY

The Holy Bible, Revised Standard Version; Thomas
Nelson & Sons, New York 1957. |

Allen, W. C. the International Critical Commentar "St. Matthew";
Charles Seribner's Sons, New Tack iouy.
Arndt, F. William A Greek-English Lexicon of the New Testament and
Gingrich, Wilbur F, other iarly Christian Literate . the University
° hicago Press and syndics of the Cambridge
University Press, Chicago 1952,
Cullman, Oscar Peter Disciple-Apostle-Martyr. SCM Press LTD, London
1953.

|
Eiselen, F.C. The Abingdon Bible Commentary. Abingdon Press, New
Lewis, Edwin ork, Nashville, $<

Downey, D.G.

Flew, R. Newton - Jesus and His Church. The Abingdon Presst New York
Cincinnati, i 1938.

Gibson, John M. - The Gospel of St, Matthew oe oe Expositor's Bible"
ed, by i Robertson Nicoll. | A.C, Armstrong & Son,

New York-London, 1905,
Johnson, Sherman E. - The Iviterpreter's Bible; Vol. 7, The Gospel
Buttrick, George A, According to St. Matthew Abingdon Sa,
New York-Nashvi ile, 1951.

Luther, Martin - Luther's Works; Vol. 40 Sermons. Abingdon

Machen, J. Greshaw ~ New Testament Greek for Beginners. MacMillan Co,
New York, 19

Major, H.D.A. - Mission i Message of Jesus. E.P. Dutton & Co., Inc,

Manson, T.W. New Yor

Wright, C.F.

Montefiore, C.G. - The Synoptic Gospels, Vol. II; Macmillan & Co.
London, ioe?

Nestle, Eberhard - Novum Testamentum Graece. i by Privileg. Wurtt
he

Bibelanstalt Stuttgart for American Bible
Soclety. New York

The British and Foreign
Bible Society, London, 1954,

366

Robertson, A.T.

Robinson, Theodore H, - The Moffat tament C n “The
Gospel o W, ubleday, Doran and Co., Inc.
Garden City, New York, 1928.

Streeter, Burnett Hillman ~- The 28 A Study of Ori
The Macmillan Co., or 5.

Throckmorton, Burton H. - Goopes Parallels, ed, by. Thomas Nelson & Sons
New York, 5

Weiss, Johannes - Earliest Christianity. Vol. II; Harper Brothers
New oF 19591

39.